Talk:Creatio ex nihilo

Hindu veiws

I'm not sure but the followiung looks like a polemic against Hnduism?

2- believers then have to attribute all the evil ingrained in material life to God, making Him partial and arbitrary, which does not logically accord with His nature

==

I think the following section is arguing the wrong way around? Its more likely that the myths described a 'creatio ex nihilo' that the philosophers retreated from.

Chaos in it's original meaning is 'void' or 'abyss' both meaning nothing. Parminides arguing after Hesiod introduced the idea Ex Nihilo, nihil fit, nmothing comes from nothing.It was the Orphics that gave it's meaning of pre-existing substance and Ovid that gave it the later meaning 'confusion'.

"Before the last few centuries of the pre-Christian era, ancient Near Eastern mythologies envisioned the creation of the world as resulting from the actions of a god or gods upon already-existing primeval matter - the waters of chaos.[citation needed] The Greek philosophers came to question this (on a priori grounds), discussing the idea that a primeval Being (not conceived as a god or as God in the Christian sense) must have created the world out of nothing"

I don't know of any Greek Philosopher that argued for creatio ex nihilo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The following paragraph from this section is questionable gobbledygook. An authoritative reference should be provided, or the paragraph should be deleted.

"Additional support for this belief is that something cannot arise from nothing; this is a contradiction. Therefore there must always have been something. But it is scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed. What is more, matter is contingent, that is it is not logically impossible for it not to exist, and nothing else depends on it. So there must have been a Creator who is not contingent and not composed of matter: this Being is God."

Sschale (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC) This article is highly questionable based on there is an upstart winery in British Columbia's Okanagan Valley of the same name. Wikipedia is NOT a marketing tool, but a forum for education and broadening one's base of knowledge.209.121.8.54 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise that "quotes from the bible" counted as arguments in favour of ex nihilo. The kalam or first cause arguments are actual arguments, but I've never heard the "its written down in a book" argument before. Perhaps someone needs to make seperate sections: one for actual arguments, and another for passages in the bible which support the ex nihilo interpretation of the bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.33.195 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed from article pending verification

An opinion held by some Orthodox Jewish scholars is that the Book of Genesis contains a mystical interaction between God and all of creation. A faSmall Textmiliar name of God for Christians, "alpha and omega", comes from the idea of God being the cause of all creation. The Hebrew equivalent of the letter "alpha" is "aleph", both letters being the equivalent to the letter 'A'. Therefore, since God alone represents the letter 'A', the next letter in the alphabet, 'B', or "bet" obviously is situated after the letter 'A'. Because then, the Torah begins with the letter 'B', in the word "bereshit" - or, in the beginning - some have posited the idea that we can conclude that God existed before the Torah, but that the Torah was the next thing to exist in the universe, and that this relationship between God and the Torah supports the theory of ex nihilo, due to the fact that the letter 'A' is situated before the letter 'B' in the alphabet.

• I don't know where this nonsense came from, so for reasons of unverifiability, I've moved it to the talk page. Anyone who can cite and make sense of the above passage can reinsert it at their will. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No but I can say that modern Hebrew is based on Koine Greek. That of course means that the Old Testament was not written in modern Hebrew. LoveMonkey 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nota bene — Both №tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ and LoveMonkey have absolutely no idea what they were talking about —— Notorious is ignorant of basic Jewish tradition and so uses that as a justification for removing it from the article; and then LoveMonkey puts forth completely False linguistic information regarding Hebrew language. Modern Hebrew (which I as a non-Jew studied at a secular, public university) is most certainly NOT based on Koine Greek... It was a revival and renovation of Biblical Hebrew... I know this, because I could read the Hebrew Bible with a minimum of trouble after learning Modern Hebrew. It sounds as if there is Anti-Judaizing prejudice at work here if not up-front, in the background somewhere... Such ill-informed, un-scholarly work is the bane of Wikipedia. Who has allowed it to stand so for so many years? This is NOT to say that this material should be added back in; I'll have to think about that... But it is rather to be honestly appalled at the ugly, ignorant, stupid and ill-judged aspects of Wikipedia. It's this sort of thing that justifies policy by professors, teachers and other educators and academics forbidding use of Wikipedia as a source for intellectual work. Emyth (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed from article pending rewrite, citation, proof of notability etc. etc.

"Social architecture There is a process by which one creates a social structures by providing a space. So for example you can rent a space in a commercial district in a town and simply leave it open for others to provide the inspiration for creating something in it. The vacuum of the space attracts something to manifest in it. This process is also given the name Edwarding after Matthew Edwards who created Circlecenter (circlecenter.com) based on this principle.

There is a yang form of social architecture where you prescribe and design more of what you want to see. There is a yin form of social architecture where you allow more of the structure to be built by the participants. Open space technology and world cafe are more yin forms. Edwarding is a relatively yin form of social architecture."

This may make sense to whoever wrote it, but to me it just seems like a rant from an acid fiend that is thinking on a different wavelength to the average Wikipedia reader. If it is ok can we see some context please? And proof of why this is not just some cult's pseudo-philosophy would be nice. Howboutpete 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

new theory with a myspace blog

I found an arguement against Ex Nihilo on a myspace blog but i don't want to post it without giving the guy any credit, and wikipedia isn't letting me source the blog. Is there anyway to work around this? ProductofSociety

Strange passage

I removed this passage from the article.

---

- For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).

---

This passage seems to miss the point of the book (which is very effectively refuted) The books point was that ex nihilio was a second century invention. As the review states.

---

"But it seems that we have here sufficient references to creation out of nothing to call into question the assertion that this doctrine was nothing but a late second-century phenomenon." And again..

---

"We noted earlier that Professor May does not think that the text of the Bible demands belief in creation ex nihilo (p. 24). Unfor-tunately, he does little to defend this claim. While he makes passing reference to certain biblical passages that seem to hint at the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, he does not seriously interact with them. He focuses on patristic study (as his subtitle indicates) rather than on biblical exegesis. This turns out to be a weakness for May because, if properly done, sound biblical exegesis refutes the notion that creation out of nothing is a mere theological invention. For instance, Rom 4:17 (where God is said to call into being things that are not) and Heb 11:3 (where the visible world is not created from anything observable) are passages which May simply writes off as fitting in with other statements of hellenistic Judaism - statements that seem to affirm absolute creation out of nothing but are actually only asserting belief in world-formation."

---

And most importantlyIt appears the books message is that Gnosticism did not teach or believe or create the ex nihilio concept, but prompted Christians to take the position to counter what was gnostic.
Indeed, May gives the false impression that creatio ex nihilo was nothing more than the invention of well-meaning Christian theologians who were trying to defend what they believed to be the biblical notions of God's absolute sovereignty, freedom, and omnipotence in the face of heretical gnostic doctrines.

---

This is a farcry from Christianity adopting from Gnosticism a gnostic doctrine. LoveMonkey 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding use of the phrase "attained a highly developed"

The second paragraph begins with: "A number of philosophers in ancient times attained a highly developed concept of God as the supreme ruler of the world, but they failed to develop the concept of God as the absolute cause of all finite existence."

It seems to me that considering concepts of God or gods in terms of higher or lesser development could be conceived as value-laden. Both "development" and "attainment" tend to imply a level of achievement. Neither the concept of ex nihilo nor the history of the term calls for phrasing in terms of achievement, development, etc. Indeed, such phrasing seems to violate the objectivity of Wikipedia. I would suggest removing this from the article. Alternatively, I would suggest that if there is a historical record of value judgement being placed on this concept, then it be recognized, and recognized as such (opinion). Chuckhumming 21:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, It might be that you do not understand what the sentence means? did you notice the comma that separates the two different parts. The first part talks about their ideas about God, while the second part goes on to say that in those complex and well reasoned ideas for God they had not developed the concept of ex nihilo creation.

Maybe it would be more clear if it said "developed a sophisticated and complex concept of God" since they were highly rational models with ideas that are very often still used to this day when talking about God, while religious models are based on revelation with an admixture of rational arguments about the nature of God. It might help to read the reference given. Hardyplants 09:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes it more sophisticated and complex? What is its connection to "rationality"? The fact that this concept was used in Western philosophy? 69.232.198.53 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"more" sophisticated than what? and what concept?

The connection to "rationality" is that the ideas were based on logical arguments. Philosophical arguments for God are generally different than religious arguments about God. The point is that ancient philosophers had gone over all types of arguments about the nature of God and gods and His/their relation to the physical world but they did not develop ex nihilo creation. Hardyplants 06:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre-biblical theories of ex nihilio

I take issue with this paragraph:

A number of philosophers in ancient times attained a highly developed concept of God as the supreme ruler of the world, but did not develop a concept of God as the absolute cause of all finite existence. Before the biblical idea of creation, myths envisioned the world as being preexisting matter acted upon by a god or gods that reworked this material into the present world. Only in the Bible and the religious thought that developed out of its world-view do we see the formulation of ex nihilo creation.

The source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, supports this by stating:

Though some of the pagan philosophers attained to a relatively high conception of God as the supreme ruler of the world, they seem never to have drawn the next logical [logical?] inference of His being the absolute cause of all finite existence. ... puerile story of the cosmogony corrupted by polytheistic myths. [vs. the mature story?] .... Paganism and the Oriental heresies had waned.

However, "ex nihilo" isn't restricted to the volitional activity of a God. Some have argued (e.g., Eric Voegelin) that Hesiod's Chaos in Theogony was nothingness from which everything emerged by means of the cosmic force "eros". Pherecydes of Syros countered Heriod by asserting that the gods always existed. Nor is there unanimous agreement that the Genesis account has to be interpreted as "ex nihilo". Plato's rational creative force of the demiurge should be explored also. I believe that a) the pre-Socratic and Socratic arguments need to be included, b) the lede should be modified to be more expansive and c) less emphasis on one theological argument (Catholic) should be used in the lede. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See http://books.google.com/books?id=JeXteXhnJWkC&pg=PA492&lpg=PA492&dq=theogony+and+christianity&source=web&ots=TmjKpdhqmI&sig=iRnUdz1rAlLfSkzu3H1ttjlvL3E#PPA493,M1

As a possible starting place. In some of the Greek concepts the Gods have a beginning, others have prefect order that gives rise to chaos that produce the world and the things in it. It might be useful to present the distinctions between the Christian and Pagan concepts in relation to cosmology. Hardyplants (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the "Judeo-Christian views" section, there is an uncited statement that it is scientifically impossible for matter to exist forever. I'm wondering if this could either be elaborated on a bit or removed entirely, because I'm not entirely sure what scientific theory or principle this is referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.104.200 (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Views

Though this information may be relevant, this section seems to be lacking an elaboration on how exactly the view that matter and energy correspond to ex nihilo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.172.157 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

this article deals with theology, not physics. You want vacuum fluctuation, which is an article on physics, not theology. I know there are books of the quantum quackery flavour that draw idle parallels between theology and physics. These are neither WP:DUE to serious articles on theology, nor to serious articles on physics, but need to be delegated to articles that actually focus on these ideas, apparently dubbed "Theophysics". See also WP:FRINGE for the proper treatment of such ideas. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested removal or rewrite.

Under: "History of the idea of ex nihilo" The sentence "...often personified in the form of a fight between a culture-hero deity and a chaos monster in the form of a dragon (the chaoskampf motif). * This is also the scenario envisaged by the authors of the Hebrew Genesis creation narrative.*"

This implies that the Hebrew Genesis narrative assumes the 'chaos monster' view of creation, which it patently does not do.

131.111.192.100 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Under: Opposition within the Christian theological tradition

'"When God began to create...the earth was a formless void",[7] implying that God worked with pre-existing materials.'

A "void" is a "pre-existing material"? That doesn't make sense, and sounds more like one persons opinion of that translation of the Hebrew line. The next paragraph holds a better example using a different translation of the Hebrew line.

Request removal or rewrite.99.191.253.7 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a case for {{refimprove}}. The point is indeed an "opinion", only it is an opinion of a certain notability in Christian theology. The reference given is The new Oxford annotated Bible, but it isn't made explicit what the annotation to the verse in question is.

As far as I know it is undisputed that there is no creatio ex nihilo in Genesis. The concept did not exist during the Near Eastern Iron Age. As the article makes clear, the re-interpretation of Genesis in these terms is a product of Hellenistic Judaism. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

=== The problem with this section is lack of balance. If you are going to list the specific arguments against the traditional Christian view of creation "ex nihilo", then the traditional arguments for "ex nihilo" should be listed as well, and the specific arguments for "ex nihilo" creation are not listed. At least somewhere in the article they should be spelled out, just as Professor Ord's arguments are. Also, if some of the early Christian writers made statements that implied they did not believe in ex nihilo creation, those statements should be included in the article. That Philo speculated on the pre-existance of matter does not necessarily follow that he believe in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. "We have no evidence in the history of the universe after the big bang..." The big bang is a theory in direct opposition to creation, being stated as fact. --"Chase" (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

the section was indeed flawed. People keep mixing up Christian theology (Church fathers) with "Old Testament scholarship", i.e. scholarly analysis of the 5th century BC text, never mind the Church fathers. If the article could just for a minute stop conflating the two, it would become perfectly apparent that

• the text of Genesis as it stood in the 5th century BC did not assume creatio ex nihilo
• the early Christian thinkers from at least the 2nd century did assume creatio ex nihilo

There is no contradiction between these two statements. At what point and by what processes during 450 BC and AD 150 the idea became dominant is another question. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

latin legal term

Why is this under the category latin legal term? It is latin, but I can't see any use in legal.... please remove the category, or add reference to use in court. 59.148.232.130 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Think "baseless." Although I hit this looking for examples of usage before I found actual examples of usage - one of those things you know you've seen somewhere but apparently is less common than you'd think (argument that a court should reconsider mistakenly granting an "ex nihilo request" etc.). --72.248.181.10 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

'Judaeo-Christian theologians ' section not jewish

Hi,

It seems to me this section present only christian theology. The only one "jewish" is Philo, and its views do not reflect modern Jewish theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.227.91 (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good point... Connect it with my observation above (the N.B. comment in the second talk section Re: Removed from article pending verification about Bereshit and the Hebrew Alephbet)...and I suggest that this is a real problem. But what should we do about it? The ostensive topic of the article is a phrase used mostly in Christian theology. Is it also used in Jewish contexts? I notice that JewishEncyclopedia.com has an article (CREATION http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C) that addresses this and provides Hebrew for "ex nihilo" - "יש מאין" (which is also used to mean "from scratch" LOL!) Let's see what can be done. BTW, sign in and be identified so we know whom we are talking with... Four tildas "~" at the end of your post will do it for you. Emyth (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

○ Hi, I was really surprised to read an article on ex nihilo, even a section on Christian views, with no mention of Genesis 1:1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.109.132 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ex Nihil, not Ex Nihilo

"Nihil, Nihil, n." is an indeclinable noun. It doesn't change to "nihilo" when changed into the ablative. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.77.81 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

==> look up nihilum, nihili

"It is scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed."

The statement appears under "Logical Approaches": "But (this account continues) it is scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed." How was that conclusion made? I can visualize a universe with no beginning and no end, where matter always existed in some shape or form... Zaximus (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the logic there is that because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics you can't have a universe with no beginning. If you are curious, look up why the Oscillating Universe theory was discarded in the late 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.47.115 (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Opposition within modern Christian theology

Since there was a paragraph that discussed the LDS view of Ex Nihilo, I added the JW view to the paragraph a few weeks ago as it seemed informative to the reader. Someone edited the main text, however, and included this around the JW view:

"Does the following belong here? Although accurate clearly the following is mostly supportive of creation and not against as this section is entitled, additionally it is a doctrinal statement."

I moved this suggestion to the talk page where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.220.120 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Split or move content

The sections on Computer Science and the military seem out of place in this article. All the usages appear unrelated to each other. I then suggest the article be renamed to Ex Nihilo (Theology) or Ex Nihilo (Philosophy). I doubt reliable sources group this collection of sections together so nor should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible quadruple negative sentence

Probably the worst constructed "correct" sentence i've ever seen: "Moreover, matter is contingent: it is not logically impossible for it not to exist, and nothing else depends on it." Someone please turn this into something comprehensible for sane humans. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.132.241 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Thomas Aquinas?

Why is there no mention of Thomas Aquinas in this article? Thanks—Geremia (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In relation to the origin of the creation, Aquinas distinguished two types of God's work: a creation ab aeterno (before all centuries, namely, before the creation of the time and of Genesis 1) and a creation in initio temporis (in the same instant in which the time has started). He rejected the first type and affirmed the necessity of the second, both from the point of view of the Christian faith in the Book of Genesis, as well as for the point of view of the human natural reason:

Objection 8. Further, if the world and generation always were, there have been an infinite number of men. But man's soul is immortal: therefore an infinite number of human souls would actually now exist, which is impossible. Therefore it can be known with certainty that the world began, and not only is it known by faith.

— Summa Theologiae, Question 46. The beginning of the duration of creatures, Article 2. Whether it is an article of faith that the world began?

The related text of Summa Th., q. 76, a. 2 is available on this website. Thr creation before all centuries is admitted in the unique case of the angels, including both the holy angels of God and the ones who betrayed Him and chose to follow the angel whose name is Satan. Angels don't originate the paradoxes that are known for any creature which came to being after the beginning of the time and after the creation of Genesis 1. Angels don't die, aren't capable to generate or to create other angels or human souls or the matter. Therefore, their being alive doesn't entail the existence of infinite number of angels (nor of infinite generations of angels). Being created before all the times, angels don't imply an infinite number of days to be travelled from the present instant backwords to an hypothetic origin of the time, an origin that in a creation ab aeterno is denied.

If the creation of matter implies and chronologically follows the creation of time, angels could be created before all the times due to the fact that they don't have matter, and, more particularly, are invisible and bodiless. When they appear (e.g. in the following biblical passages: Tobit 8:1–3, Genesis 19:1–7, 1 Corinthians 11:10), they do so with an apparent (not real) human body, which doesn't have any matter. This is the point of view of the Aquinas' doctrine.

In the WP article, it could be said that Aquinas affirmed the creation ex nihilo and in initio temporis both as a Christian theologian (from the point of view of the Christian faith) and as a philosopher (from the point of view of the natural human reason). He denied the thinkability of any creation before all centuries and beliveed it to be an impossible paradox, except for what concerns the creation of all the angels, who are bodiless, immaterial and invisible.Theologian81sp (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What I learned from Catholic education about ex nihilo and a nihilo or nemine

There is a distinction between creation from nothing and creation by nothing or no one.

There cannot be creation ex nihilo or from nothing literally, with nothing understood as the material of which created things are made by God, for nothing is nothing and cannot be anything of which anything else is made as the material of composition; it is impossible even just in concept.

And there cannot be creation by nothing or no one, because creation is the making of something which cannot make itself, for if it can make itself then there is no need for it to make itself since it already exists, what it can do is to change itself.

That is called creation a nihilo or nemine, literally meaning creation by nothing or no one, nothing or no one is understood as the agent doing the creation, which is also impossible even just in concept.

God always exists, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and He is the creator of everything that exists that is not Himself.

So?

Catholic theologians are left to themselves on how to explain God creating something from nothing, for from nothing nothing can be created.

The answer is "it is a mystery" of the Christian faith, that God created everything from nothing; there are many mysteries in the Christian faith in particular in the Roman Catholic school of the Christian faith, for example of another mystery, the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christian by the priest during Mass, which then body and blood of Jesus Christian in the appearance of bread and wine are eaten by Catholics in Holy Communion.

For myself I put it this way which I think is all right with the Catholic Church although I am no longer Catholic:

Creation ex nihilo means God created everything from nothing understanding nothing as any pre-existing thing not created by God: in other words, God did not create everything from any pre-existing thing that is not God Himself.

But there is as far as I can think in the Roman Catholic way (although I am no longer Roman Catholic) there is nothing against the Christian faith in particular of the Roman Catholic school, that God used His thought to create everything that is not Himself, so that God's thought is the in a way what we might call material of which everything is created by Him that is not Himself.

That saves the ultimate supremacy of God in that if God wants to, He can stop thinking and everything created by Him will pass into nothingness, i.e. God in effect annihilates everything He has created.

You see that word, annihilate, it comes from the Latin base of nihil, meaning nothing, that is where the phrase ex nihilo comes from.

112.198.79.96 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Pachomius

Gap Theory Diagram

This should be removed, in my opinion. It claims to present the point of view of 'Abrahamic Philosophy', which I guess is supposed to mean all types of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but in reality it reflects the views only of a subgroup of Christian old-earth creationists. The 'fall of ha-Satan' part is a particularly offensive bit--the point here seems to be to try to Judaize the non-Jewish concept of a fallen Satan by applying the Hebrew title which is used in Job for the Accuser.CharlesMartel (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel

What does ex nihilo fit finiura mean... it means nothing comes from nothing out... could be a new pointer in philosophy, or so I heard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.46.224 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"A literal reading of Genesis"

Under the section History of the idea of creatio ex nihilo, a sentence begins: "Church Fathers opposed a literal reading of Genesis..." But this is begging the question by presupposing that a literal reading of Genesis opposes creation ex nihilo. In point of fact, many modern commentators (e.g., C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4, p. 50-53) arrive at the opposite conclusion--namely, that a literal reading supports creation from nothing. I propose having this sentence removed. Kyledi (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Invalid refutation of Primum Movens

Aristotle and greek philosophers talk about "The word" (logos) as the animator of the universe. "Primum Movens" is the fundamental and absolute animator of the universe. Aristotle talks about divine consciousness, and these arguments are also the basis of "Natural Law" (lex naturalis). It is clear that he holds what is now considered the esoteric view, of divine consciousness as first cause, and sustainer of everything.

Also refuting a "prime mover" based on claiming that it does not need a beginning is failure to understand the argument.

Infinite regression does not exist, as infinity must be nothing (transcendent, timeless, physicalless). It has no beginning, and no series of events. So thus you need this dualism, of creator and created, for a whole logical argument. And creation is physical. And the physical logically thus requires the non-physical first cause, prime mover. Animator, lifeforce, etc.

The concept ex-nihilo, is also a bit flawed, since God IS nothing. Creator of every thing. God orders new things into existence, but one should probably avoid the term "ex-nihilo", "out of nothing", because they are not derived of nothing. They are created entirely new.

Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.28.14 (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Supporting Arguments

I will not argue that it is entirely inappropriate for Claude Nowell’s Summum to be cited in the ‘Logical’ sub-section of the article. But the given short summary of its tenets is so similar to the Ayn Sof (Aur) concepts of Jewish Kabbalah that I wonder if this earlier belief-system might not take precedence or, better still, have its own paragraph, perhaps in a new ‘Jewish’ sub-section within ‘Supporting Arguments’. If that one small element of Kabbalah is worth a thorough article to itself, then why not at least a cross-reference in this ex nihilo article.
Indeed, I wonder why there isn’t already a Jewish sub-section. After all, there have been some heavyweight intellectuals of Orthodox Judaism, who have expressed relevant views on the subject of ex nihilo creation. One example is Maimonides (a.d. 1135 to 1204), who held Aristotle in high regard, but felt that the philosopher had not proved his point that at most God had imposed form on matter. Therefore, since the matter was still open, Maimonides preferred to accept the plain text of the Torah and to say that the universe did have a beginning in time. (The last two sentences are taken almost verbatim from a transcript of a lecture given by Lord Jonathan Sacks when, c.2005, he was Chief Rabbi in the UK).
It seems iniquitous that the Torah perspective, enshrined in the very first verse of Genesis, and on which many later parts of the Bible are mere commentary, is relegated to just three footnotes to the ‘Christian’ sub-section.--DStanB (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ex nihilo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928224539/http://cornerstonepublications.org/Philo/ to http://cornerstonepublications.org/Philo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060626083953/http://www.summum.us/philosophy/ebook/ebook.htm to http://www.summum.us/philosophy/ebook/ebook.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211142040/http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/Panel42001.htm to http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/Panel42001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus on the absence of ex nihilo from the Old Testament

I removed from the article a statement (backed up with sources) that the presence of ex nihilo in the OT is debated, because in fact there is consensus that it is absent. We have an unambiguous statement to this effect from Gary Anderson in Creation ex nihilo: Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges: "The consensus among scholars (with which I agree) is that the first three verses depict God forming the world out of preexistent matter." There can be no reason for having such an extended discussion of a so-called "scholarly debate" that does not exist.Achar Sva (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Creation out of quantum nothingness

I just invented the term quantum nothingness to focus this section. I don't know whether or not my invention is original (apparently not; see e.g., [1][2][3]) or whether my usage of the term here agrees or disagrees with any prior usage. I won't attempt to latinize the term so as to distinguish it from Ex nihilo nihil fit and Creatio ex nihilo. I intend this term to refer here to nothingness as postulated in the Lawrence Krauss book A Universe from Nothing, which, as far as I've been able to wrap my mind around it, is distinguished from other types of nothingness by the absence of not only matter and energy but also of space and time in which matter and energy might exist (see here). I would have added a section with a ham-handed attempt at content, but I think that section belongs up there with the previously mentioned latinzed section names, and I don't know what to call it. I'm hoping to be informed by comments here by other editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added content regarding this here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo

"ex nihilo" is not a belief, it's simply a phrase (meaning "out of nothing"). Creatio ex nihilo is a belief. Ex nilhilo nihil fit is another. The lead and definition need to get this right.Achar Sva (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Revised the Lead to reflect this. Editor2020 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect article from ex nihilo to creatio ex nihilo

I'm sure that whoever originally created this article (out of nothing, naturally) meant that it should treat creatio ex nihilo as its subject, but the choice of ex nihilo as the article title has meant that the lead and first few paras have to deal with distinguishing between creatio ex nihilo and the ex nihilo nihil fit idea. It would be much easier if the title were simply creatio ex nihilio, which in fact it once was. I've canvassed all authors who have edited this in the last month, (i.e., October 2020) asking for views - please indicate below....Achar Sva (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC) (Incidentally, I think I know enough about ancient biblical texts and their history to deal with the origins of the idea, but after about the 2nd century my competence and interest both rapidly fade - metaphysics is not my thing). Achar Sva (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support for reason above.Achar Sva (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, but What you want is not to redirect the article, you want to move it. I suggest you start a requested move process. I'm in favor, but ex nihilo should become a disambiguation page. Paradoctor (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support renaming; Ex nihilo is only used as short hand in the literature for the proper expression creatio ex nihilo. Hardyplants (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Ex nihilo → Creatio ex nihilo – The current name, "ex nihilo", is not the name of any specific entity; rather it's the colloquial shorthand for the concept "creatio ex nihilo", meaning the idea that the world or universe was created from nothing. It wuld be easier to write the article under this title, with a disambiguation page titled "ex nihilo". There has been some discussion on the Talk page (not many editors participating, because not many take an interest), with agreement that the change would be a good idea. Achar Sva (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support The sensible thing to do. Paradoctor (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment @Achar Sva: not many editors participating Not required, cf. WP:SILENT. Paradoctor (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I tried doing a Google Scholar search for scholarly works with "ex nihilo" in the title to see how frequently the "creatio" is included versus other uses (as the shortened version, as a mix of English and Latin "creation ex nihilo", as similar mixes of other languages and Latin, or occasionally as "ex nihilo nihil fit"). Out of the first 100 hits, I found that religious/philosophical studies were split roughly evenly, but with a slight majority for "creatio", 44 to 36. (Most common among other uses: "creation ex nihilo"). However, when used for non-religious subjects (such as the physics of the big bang, machine learning of concepts starting from a state of no knowledge, or the construction of legal doctrines unsupported by precedent or legislation), the statistics were far different, with only 1 "creatio" and 19 others (most often the bare phrase "ex nihilo"). So I would be supportive of this move (as I find "creation ex nihilo" really grating) but only if this article is clarified to state more strongly in its lead that it is about the religious doctrine only, and not about the more general concept of creation out of nothing. As such, for instance, I think the paragraph in the current lead about the physics of the big bang is misplaced; that's not what the article is about. (Also that paragraph is unsourced and doesn't summarize anything later in the article.) If the article is moved, by the way, I think that it might be appropriate to have ex nihilo point to the dab page rather than to here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

point to the dab page I think you mean "move ex nihilo (disambiguation) to ex nihilo". ;) Paradoctor (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Or redirect ex nihilo to ex nihilo (disambiguation) rather than vice versa; I don't care which. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. The concept is called creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing), not ex nihilo (from nothing). JIP | Talk 14:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, sort-of per David Eppstein. Some time ago, I added this, which was removed here. That addition was about creation out of nothing, was not about the big bang, and was not a theological view (see the lead para here). I think mention of that belongs in the article under either name. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Wtmitchell, you appear to have added the same link twice. Where was your addition removed? JIP | Talk 16:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It came out here. I've corrected my cut/paste error with that above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imagination, Memory, and Narrative Mode

Perception & Creation The statement of "Creation out of Nothing", is exactly how our Perceptional Reality is created through the Binding Problems 1 & 2 within the Encoding of Light through our Visual Cortex. It Encodes all Physics and Objectivity from Pure Abstraction. Creating the concepts of Mass and Matter. This encoding came from Evolutionary areas, such as the Collective Unconscious, as well as our personal Experiences during Development. What is also known as "Qualia", coming from the Quantity or Counting of Physics, measured as Time. ~Life

Time From Moment to Moment, there has to be an Illusionary Control technique to blend together, or else there would be a Paradox of Infinite Coding between Moments of Time. Making Time itself, an obvious Illusion of motion as a necessary tool to create Physics. Meaning there has to be an existence beyond Momentum and Energy. The same Existence behind Memory and Imagination. An Abstraction of nothingness, while its existence still occurs endlessly. ~The Tree

Memory & Relation Without the Connections of Relation from Memory(Associative Linking), the Physical World would not be able to exists in correlation to each Inertial Moment. Associative Properties have two pathways of rearrangement for parenthesis, to equal the same product. (2+3)+4=9=2+(3+4) Commutative Properties can change the Operands. 5x2=10=2x5 This is how the Unconscious Mind connects all things around us for creation of the "Stream of Consciousness". Relayed to the Preconscious areas of Cognition, it then gets streamed to us as a "Stream of Thought". Memory also is based on Emotional Work, such as Complex structures of Archetypal Psychology, that Associate through Stories. ~The River

Narrative Mode Your Stream of Thought is literally just an Imaginary Auditory Hallucination that mimics the sound of your voice, the Inner Voice to Internal Monologue, as a way of Emulating Consciousness. This Internal Monologue of Thought is from Childhood Imagination during Private Speech of 2-7 years old. The construction of Reality and Conciousness, stems from a line of translation and Narrative. This is called your Internal Discourse, that creates sense of Self. A Narrative Mode by definition. ~The Storyteller

Imagination "Inner Seeing", Imagery, Imagining, Dreaming, and Imagination are "Thinking Through Visual Processing". This disproves the need for current experience to actual have any sight, or field of vision. Meaning that light itself is not necessary in the ways we think. ~Chaos (Unknown)

"big bang", "quantum nothingness", etc.

There have been two rounds of ping-pong edits recently over the question of whether or not creation theories involving the big bang can fairly fall within this article topic. Earlier, I suggested introducing the Lawrence Krauss theory from his book A Universe from Nothing, which I characterized here as creation out of quantum nothingness, but that did not come to anything. Please discuss such things here rather than in ping-pong edit summaries. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The possible relationships between the subject of this page and the big bang are discussed in very good detail in the source for the short section I put at the bottom of the page. Since the short introductory sentence to the issues and the source were removed from the page with the incorrect edit summary that these issues have "nothing to do" with the subject of the page, I re-added them in a separate, specific sub-section for these issues, at the bottom of it. Unfortunately, time wise this is all I could dedicate to the issue at the moment. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made a comment in Talk:Religious cosmology § Apparent self-contradiction which mentions this talk page section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

More than a Latin phrase

The short description is woefully lacking. It is more than a Latin phrase. The lede should summarize the article and it does a fairly good job, but the short description should summarize the lede, and it fails. Where is the middle ground while maintaining the principles of Wikipedia:Short description? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion below notwithstanding, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creatio_ex_nihilo&curid=1813173&diff=1041445151&oldid=1041363498 is a good compromise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Religious vs. non-religious viewpoints

This was prompted by the section above and edits leading to its appearance. It's a wider topic, however, so I'm putting it in a separate section.

In this edit, made after the edits leading to that other section drew my attention, I WP:BOLDly rearranged this article in an attempt to separate the parts of it with a religious focus from the parts without such a focus. I did that quickly and without much thought. Taking a second look now, I see that the attempt failed; the section holding the parts I took to be without religious focus speaks of an "uncaused, personal creator of the universe" -- clearly having a religious focus there.

Out of curiosity, I looked at instances of big bang mentions in the article. There are currently only two -- both in the section containing items I took to having a religious focus in my rearrangement:

• "Others assert that it ["it" referring to the Christian Bible] gains validity from having been held by so many for so long; and others find support in modern cosmological theories surrounding the Big Bang." This is supported by a cite of pages 3-4 of this source. I don't find support there -- especially not for what I take to be a WP:OR POV assertion re "find[ing] support". The pages there are not numbered and I don't know what pages the cite identifies as 3-4, but I searched the previewable text for mentions of "big bang" and didn't see anything which seemed to fit.
• The other mention is in the Contrast to Modern Science subsection, which I rearranged with the bits I thought had a theological focus because I took that to be what this was contrasting from.

I'm a sometime editor of this article, having tried several times without lasting success to get some thoughts from the Lawrence Krauss book A Universe from Nothing into it. I recall one past argument against that was that it was included in "big bang", which the article already covered. Whatever coverage there was back then seems to have withered away in the current version.

I'm rambling. I'll just conclude by opining that this article needs a[nother?] hard look. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I am replying here shortly to you and to the section above. Regarding the section above I suggested a compromise short description that I hope will be accepted by both of you. Regarding "big bang," one of the mentions of it had been removed from the lede, and I re-added it at the bottom of the page, since I do believe the two topics are related. And I agree with you that this article does need "a[nother] hard look." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If creatio ex nihilo is "the belief that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act," then the big bang shouldn't be mentioned at all - it doesn't suggest that a divine act was involved, and indeed, being science, cannot. Achar Sva (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thart's a big "if", though, and it takes as a given the presumption that nonreligious viewpoints are excluded from the topic. That is what the lead sentence currently says, relying on the viewpoint expressed here by one cited supporting source (I noted with interest some bits of the Preface of that work). This appears to me to flout WP:DUE. I'm focused on other things at the moment, but I'll have a go at digging up alternative sources expressing other viewpoints when I have time. 08:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

That is just one definition, and I am not sure it should be the "defining" one. But in any case, I don't believe that the "big bang" does posit that matter is eternal. They are related in any case, because both try to provide and answer as to how the universe was created. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Also, to further beat a horse which I hope is not dead, the Kraus book is specifically about creation from a very profound nothingness -- see the two discussion sections above which mention quantum nothingness in their section headings Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I was simply referring to the creation of the world/universe according to the Bible, in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (in the JPS and some other Jewish versions). warshy ^(¥¥) 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the Krauss book and about theories re the big bang is that they do not presumee esistence of matter prior to that event. You said that you do not believe that some particular religious narratives do not posit that matter is eternal. I don't see disagreement there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Error in Contrast to modern science section?

It states that the Big Bang "offers no explanation of cosmic existence but only a description of the first few moments of that existence."

1) I'm not sure everyone agrees that it describes "the first few moments of that existence". The Big Bang & Cosmogony pages seems to imply that, according to some theories, there may have been something before the quantum fluctuations when the singularity of the universe started to expand.

2) Even if not, as a technicality, I'm wondering if it would be more accurate to say that it explains the first few moments after existence rather than "first few moments of that existence".

3) The wording "explanation of cosmic existence" seems a bit vague. Is there any objection to something like "origin of the universe" or "how the universe came into existence"? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that this nit ought to be picked. That assertion is supported in the article by cites of two sources; this one (from the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship -- perhaps not the best source for this) characterized the BB as an "episode [that offers] only a description of the early formative development of the cosmos" and this one (from this source, produced for NASA by Harvard Smithtonian Center for Astrophysics) writes (not at the point linked, but near its initial mention of the BB) of "the (mistaken) belief that during the Big Bang, matter expanded into space from a point". That second source, and other similarly focused sources I've seen, characterize the BB as an event that had zero duration; those first few moments of the existence of the universe described in the article would have taken place after the zero-duration event of the BB brought the universe into existence. There are numerous sources hypothesizing about what happened in the first few nanoseconds following the BB. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that Lawrence Krauss writes in the book A Universe from Nothing (which I often opine ought to be mentioned in this article) that the Big Bang was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics) named Georges Lemaître ([4]), as noted in the WP article about Liemaitre (he didn't hang the name "Big Bang" on it, though; see The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Sorry, I'm not clear, are you agreeing that the current wording in the article should be changed, and if so, what to?

I also noticed that the Big Bang article contradicts this one more fundamentally. The first line there is:

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution."

Here it states:

"The Big Bang theory... offers no explanation of cosmic existence but only a description of the first few moments of that existence."

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think the following will be helpful but I'll respond to your questions as follows: It's me that has been unclear. Yes, I believe that the wording pointed up at the start of this section ought to be changed. I lack the background for more than a surface understanding of physical cosmology, but I've read a lot. My understanding is that the Big Bang is an event postulated by some and that Big Bang Theory explores details regarding and physical consequences of that event -- Big Bang Theory being about the postulated Big Bang event and also about a lot else. Your quote is the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of the Big Bang article, and it describes not the Big Bang event but, rather, Big Bang Theory. It has three supporting cites -- two in this book, which I have not seen, and one linking this and mentioning this, neither of which provide much information in themselves. As far as I understand the Krauss book I keep mentioning, in a nutshell it postulates a transition from a profound nothingness in which there was no spacetime to a universe with spacetime, in which an event such as the Big Bang would be possible (parts of the book discuss theories regarding consequences of such an event). I've made a few unsuccessful attempts to get something along those lines into parts of this article not focused on reliigion but, being more interested in other topical areas, I focus elsewhere. I'm occasionally drawn to comment on discussions here when I see them on my watchlist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(afterthought) Out of curiosity, I looked here after writing the above and found the following which seems apt to quote here:

In biblical Hebrew, the phrase יְהִי אוֹר‎ (yəhî ’ôr) is made of two words. יְהִי‎ (yəhî) is the third-person masculine singular jussive form of "to exist" and אוֹר‎ (’ôr) means "light." [...] In the Koine Greek Septuagint the phrase is translated "καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός γενηθήτω φῶς καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς" — kaì eîpen ho Theós genēthḗtō phôs kaì egéneto phôs. Γενηθήτω is the imperative form of γίγνομαι, "to come into being."

It strikes me that "to come into being" sort-of parallels my understanding of the Krauss book. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that you raise the issue of Genesis 1:3 as connected to the Big Bang. My initial assumption was that, indeed, the Big Bang was actually referring to the initial creation of light in the universe. However, in the Natalie Portman movie The Other Woman (2009 film), her young step-son William Woolf, tells her, walking through the snow in the park in winter, towards the end of the movie, that the Big Bang is "older than the Bible." That got me thinking that I may have been wrong: the Big Bang really does occur before the Genesis ("in the beginning"). These are all interesting questions, to my mind, that are both related to the Big Bang and to Creatio ex Nihilo. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 14:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean older than the events described in the judeao-christian biblical narratives. Per Bible § Development, "The Bible is not a single book but a collection of books, whose complex development is not completely understood. The books began as songs and stories orally transmitted from generation to generation before being written down in a process that began sometime around the start of the first millennium BCE and continued for over a thousand years." The BB event would predate that by several billion years. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Creatio ex nihilo and the Bible

Currently, under the section "Creatio ex nihilo: the creation of matter," the following claim is made:

• In modern times some Christian theologians argue that although the Bible does not explicitly mention creation ex nihili, various passages suggest or imply it

It is worth noting that the source given for this claim does not actually match the reference, but may have possibly been found from another website, e.g. this one, that uses that same source. However, this also seems to be from a Protestant perspective, or just is misguided. The very next section refers to 2 Maccabees under the Jewish Philosophy section in which Creatio ex Nihilo is explicit. This passage is certainly in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, and the Vulgate for 2 Maccabees 7:28 even reads "Peto, nate, ut aspicias ad caelum et terram, et ad omnia quae in eis sunt, et intelligas quia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus, et hominum genus." It seems like these two sections ought to be reworked given the immediate contradiction that follows the section I have quoted from. I'm not sure how it ought to be changed, but certainly the claim about the Christian Bible not speaking about the topic of the page ought to be removed or rewritten to bring it into accord with the next section in which it quotes from a book many Christians do hold as Scripture. Jack17212 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Urschöpfung?

We have a red link Urschöpfung. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, it's a German neologism for primal creation. There's a German WP article here and some other sources listed here. Google Translate can render snippets into English. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Define "Matter". clarification needed. dubious wp:surprise redirect

Define 'matter' in the lead. Is its redirection to the page Matter – Something that has mass and volume – justified? Those who formulated 'philosophical' premises on 'ex nihilo' (eg Parmenides,as seen in the page) did not understand 'mass and volume', and would have been unable to agree or disagree with the claim that 'mass and volume came ex nihilo'. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the offending wikilink in the lead and thus also the dubious tag. The lead is a summary of the main, and if there is a broader issue about the use of the term matter the issue extends (no pun intended) throughout the whole article where the term matter is used and referenced to reliable sources. As the objection above is just to the discussion in the wikilinked page that applies a definition that may not match the philosophical definition used here, removing the wikilink appears to be the best option. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In Greek thought prime matter was not unformed or undetermined matter but was pure potentiality and thus synonymous with oblivion [non being]. Apiaries (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there an LDS interest group on here trying to reinterpret Genesis 1:1?

I notice someone on here is trying hard to spin the Genesis 1:1 text to make it read as creation ex materia, even though there is absolutely nothing mentioned in the text as existing prior to or alongside God. Apiaries (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC). Given the silence of the text the onus is on scholars to prove creation ex materia or ex ipse and not simply read it into the text to advance some theological agenda.

The idea that B'rëshiyt Bärä élohiym ët haSHämayim w'ët hääretz can be translated in at least two more ways is a novel theory proposed by Joseph Blenkinsopp. Up until this time the uncontested rendering of the passage was: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth." While I do not wish to stifle academic curiosity I find that the modern tendency to attack and challenge existing convention, is not for the sake of accuracy or clarity, but simply to make a name for oneself. I hope that doesn't sound too cynical, but that's definitely the impression modern scholars are giving.

With this question we basically have the following theories:

God created 1)ex materia, 2) ex ipse or 3) ex nihilo

While it is true that "nothing comes from nothing" Christians believe that (a non-contingent) something brought about (a contingent) something from nothing. God does not need pre-existing material in order to create nor does He need to 'pinch off' a piece of His own Being/Substance (because God is an indivisible Spirit the latter would be impossible anyway), God simply calls them into being and they exist, using His own Being as a template not as "starting material". Just because such an act of creation is difficult to conceive of for the creature does not mean that it is impossible for the Creator. Apiaries (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That is probably debatable as an assertion of fact. It has probably been debated endlessly and citeable sources supporting numerous expressions of opinion related to it are probably available. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything is debatable. But given that things do exist and seeing how they come into being, there must be an uncaused cause behind it all which of necessity must be both omnipotent and spiritual (i.e. not material), thus ruling out 1 and 2.

I don't know about LDS interest groups but there is an assertion in the currrent article version saying: "It has been known since the Middle Ages that on strictly linguistic and exegetical grounds option 1 is not the preferred translation.¹⁰" I dug around for background in past article versions and see that goes back to May of 2020 with some changes n the assertion specifics and in sources cited; see e.g., [5] and [6]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I also want to respond to the following statement in the text, "This view of creation was repugnant to Christian church fathers of the time, as well as to Arabic and Hebrew philosophers, and they forcefully argued for the otherness of God and his creation and that God created all things from nothing by the word of God." Any "repugnance" among the early Church Fathers for the theory of emanation was not the cause of its rejection, rather it was the rejection of the apostolic teaching (ex nihilo) which was the cause of the repugnance.

Apiaries, please consider revising your edit here which seems to have added an unsupported editorial comment by you to an existing citation. You appear to focus on the word repugnant in the assertion relying on the cite for support. I haven't found a searchable copy of the cited source but this book apparently contains that as a chapter, is searchable here (try searching for fathers) and apparently does not contain the words repugnant or repugnance. I suggest removing your insertion there and changing the word repugnant in the cite-supported assertion to unacceptable, which is the word the cited supporting source actually uses (see this). Also, please read WP:TE, WP:EW. and WP:BRD. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That edit/insertion of mine into the article text was a mistake. I had planned to include that comment here instead of putting it in the text of the article. So thanks for doing that. As for the word "repugnant", yes, it implies subtly that the fathers acted emotionally and not rationally. Apiaries (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC). "Unacceptable" is a good replacement word.

"neutrality" though a nice word to throw around, only exists as an illusion. The universe was not structured in gray, out of which men formed black and white, but is like a black and white checkered board where men seek to form gray in order to avoid conflict. We are either on the side of the truth or we are on the side of error. There is no middle ground. Apiaries (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:TPG. Consider that, particularly the last point in WP:TPNO, in regard to future cmments here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"a man of great learning and an earnest seeker after truth" are you trying to bait me? Source please. Apiaries (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

just leave those sentences as they are. You're not improving them but overloading them with unnecessary information... you don't need to 'warn' anyone beforehand as to the purpose of these writings. They can figure that out themselves. Apiaries (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Big Bang

"The Big Bang theory, by contrast to theology, is a scientific theory; it offers no explanation of cosmic existence but only a description of the first few moments of that existence."

What is contrasting at all? It's just another myth. 79.106.203.36 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah, etc.

I have reverted this removal of cite-supported content, reinserting it along with a {{verify source}} tag. If I understand the edit summary for the removal correctly, it explains that this content was removed because it is the understanding of the removing editor that if the cited source does support the article assertion here, then that source is incorrect. Given that, the WP:NPOV approach set out by WP:DUE would be preferable to removal. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)